Opposition to U.S foreign policy
As the United States grew into a global power, its government has become more involved with other countries. This situation has led to opposition to U. S foreign policy and has become one of the major sources for Anti-American sentiment.
People criticizes U.S foreign policy because they see contradictions between foreign policy rhetoric and actions.
For instance, one of goals of U.S foreign policy is Promotion of peace, freedom and democracy in all regions of the world. There is a contradiction because the mention of peace is opposed to the long list of U.S military Involvement. For example, we know that U.S had participated at Vietnam War. During this war,the U.S conducted massive bombing campaingns against Cambodia where 600,000 civilians were killed. We can, also, quoted Gulf War, Irak War… So it’s a big military involvement for a country which wishes to promote peace.
The mention of freedom and democracy is opposed to the many former and current dictatorship that receive(d) U.S financial or military support especially in Latin America and the Middle East.
In the Middle East, America supports regimes such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan that are unpopular with many people in those countries because they are seen as oppressive and tyrannical.
Regarding Latin America, America has frequently supported undemocratic governments, coups, or insurgent movements in Latin America such as Guatemala or Honduras, usually to prevent the spread of Communism but most of all for their economic reasons it means to protect U.S interests.
Another goal of US foreign policy is free trade, unencumbered by tariffs, interdictions and other economic barriers. There is, also, a contradiction here. The mention of free trade is opposed to U.S import tarriffs (to protect local industries from global competition) introduced by U.S in March 2002 on foreign goods like wood and steel. This action was seen by many people outside the U.S as an instance of America failing to practice what it preaches in terms of free trade.
Moreover, it exists a problem with Arms trade. Many criticize the United States for boycotting treaties like the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Small Arms Treaty, or the anti-personnel landmine banning Ottawa Treaty. And don't understand campaigns against attempts to build weapons of mass destruction by countries such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea, whereas U.S is known to hold the world’s largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to continue development of new types of weapons. But most of all, some people doesn't understand why U.S reacts violently with these countries while ignoring similar programs by other countries like Israel (for instance).
posted by Sandrine @ 10:19 AM
9 Comments:
It seems to me that raw power alone is not enough to preserve and extend America’s security and prosperity in the modern world. The United States needs the help of others to meet the challenges it faces overseas. America's foreign policy has stirred great resentment abroad. At some point, America’s friends and allies will refuse to follow our lead and America will stand alone--a great power unable to achieve its most important goals.
The US shielded Western Europe from the Soviet Union for almost 50 years using its military - at great expense. Would you rather we had not done that? If Stalin had been the only one with nuclear bombs in the world after WWII, how many more would have died do you think? Would you rather the US had not invaded France at Normandy? Why is it that Japan and Germany have the second and third largest economies in the world right now? Which country is more 'peaceful' - South Korea or North Korea? Why didn't you mention Bosnia and Kosovo? Were those "good" wars even though they had absolutely nothing to do with making Americans safer?
And provide a source for that 600,000 figure - I don't buy it. The US bombed the crap out of North Vietnam, not Cambodia, and when they pulled out, the result was Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge and more than 2 million deaths. Millions died because the US military abandoned them. Why do you choose start a discussion of US foreign policy with Vietnam - a former French colony?
You say, "America supports regimes such as ... Jordan that are unpopular with many people in those countries because they are seen as oppressive and tyrannical." OK, let's compare Jordan to Spain: The day after the recent suicide bombings in Jordan, Jordanians took to the streets by the thousands to shout "Death to Zarqawi!" King Abdullah said terrorism as "sick" and called for a "global fight" against it. "These people are insane," he said of the suicide bombers. Compare that with Spain's reaction to the Madrid bombing on March 11, last year. The day after the trains blew up, citizens of Spain also took to the streets but instead of righteous anger, they were "united in sorrow" and instead of wishing death to al Qaeda and the train-bombers, they protested Aznar and Bush. Instead of a leader who calls for a "global fight", they elected a government pledged to withdraw its resources from any global fight. So which country is more "mature" and "peaceful"? Which country has the better foreign policy? Spain or Jordan? Is it better to withdraw, or to fight back? And which of those two countries would you say is more 'stable' right now. Spain is in bad shape. Early this month, its parliament voted to consider granting the northern region of Catalonia the right to become autonomous, even to call itself a "nation." The Basque region is also pushing for sovereignty. The possibility that Spain will break up into a group of ministates is very real.
I could even compare Iraq to France - Paris to Baghdad. Both cities seem to be battling with "insurgents."
Um... you don't let Iran and North Korea have nukes for the same reason you don't let a four year old child play with a gun. Besides, in Iran and North Korea, "Death to America" is how they say "hello."
About the comment made by Figaro, I totally agree with his point on Soviet Union and the great help the US gave to western Europe during that time and WWII. But, because there is always a but, I can say that France (in fact the King of France when he sent La Fayette to America to fight against the british)GAVE money to the people of the British colonies to buy weapons and ammunations to free themselves and create what became the United State of America.
Without France's help, maybe the US would not exist. That is one point so we can say that we are even on this point.
Another point is the case of Spain. I really doubt that Spain would have been attacked if Aznar had not supported Bush in his war campaign against Saddam Hussein. Especially if you know that he went against spanish people will (polls in spain showed that 90 percent where against the war in Irak). That is why they were angry against Aznar. There is no need to be angry against terrorists, everybody knows they are bad and evil. The fact is that people thinks in Europe that what happened on 9/11 is simply not our business but America's business and it can handle it by itself because the US is strong enough.
The position of Spain and Jordan are completely different, Jordan has a common frontier with Irak, it is involved in what is happening nowadays and the war on terror. Spain was not involved until Aznar decided to support Bush. For many people in Spain, who is responsible for what happened in Madrid? Aznar and Bush are.
I want to recall something, even if it is strong and painfull, remember that this is my personal point of view. Three thousand people died on 9/11. Which is hawfull. But comparing to the wars and genocides there have been during the twentieth century, this is nothing. No destruction of freedom came after that, hopefully.
That is why poeple in Europe thinks we do not have to care about.
Finally, about Paris compared to Baghdad, the big difference is that there is NO foreign forces in France giving the excuse to the insurgents to do what they are doing. This is a french problem. It does not involve a foreign country. The presence of the foreign country is the reason (bad reason to me and unacceptable one) why there are bombings and fights in Irak that kill more Iraqui people than American soldiers.
At a time of the globilized world, we actually and currently need a world governance. If UNO can't provide peace and freedom all around the world, countries must try to help people. Aristocraty is not a good way to live under. Developed and democrtatic countries should bring democraty everywhere it's needed.
But France or other countries where people don't care about the others can't support this kind of ideology. They are concerned by themselves and don't want to go to war anymore. That's one of the problems of the idea of democraty, which should take place all over the globe, people have power to change the rules but don't do it.
Max makes an interesting point: "...other countries where people don't care about the others can't support this kind of ideology. They are concerned by themselves and don't want to go to war anymore. That's one of the problems of the idea of democraty..."
I agree that democracies are not as likely to go to war to fix a problem as non-democratic countries, and this in itself can be a problem. But generally, this reluctance to use force is a good thing in my opinion.
Good point by Valentino about the French assistance during the U.S. Revolutionary War.
This statement however seems inconsistent: "There is no need to be angry against terrorists, everybody knows they are bad and evil. The fact is that people thinks in Europe that what happened on 9/11 is simply not our business but America's business and it can handle it by itself because the US is strong enough."
Everybody knows the terrorists are bad and evil, therefore we should ignore them? It is America's problem? How can you say that and then turn around and say, "But Iraq did not attack the U.S. on 9/11."? We are at war with an enemy that operates from within many countries, whose principal weapons against us are fear and disinformation, and who have pledged to destroy us. (Saddam also pledged to destroy us, more than once, and he gave safe harbor to those who had attacked the U.S. previously.)
Valentino, by your line of reasoning, Europeans have no right to complain about how the U.S. fights this war. Is this what you really think?
Is UNO in crisis? "The UN was founded at the conclusion of World War II by the victorious world powers, and the founders of the UN had high hopes that it would act to prevent conflicts between nations and make future wars impossible, by fostering an ideal of collective security". "MAKE FUTURE WARS IMPOSSIBLE". Is it what really happened?
France hasn't experience the 9/11 terrorist attacks and I'm not sure they really understand how Americans felt after that. Of course the foreign policy of US isn’t the same since that. I don’t try to justify what the Government does, because I’m convince that war isn’t the right solution because it’s innocent people who always pays the price. It’s important to have a rational view and not just think from a French or American’s point of view.
Sandrine, in your article you forgot to mention this: "There are a variety of responses to these criticisms. For instance, some argue that the increased American military involvement around the world is an outgrowth of the inherent instability of the world state system as it existed in the late 19th Century. The inherent failings of this system led to the outbreak of World War I and World War II. The United States has assumed a prominent peacekeeping role, naturally on its own terms, due to the easily demonstrable inter-state insecurity that existed before 1945”
Here are other aspects of the US foreign policy:
- Most analysts have characterized present Sino-American relations as complex and multi-faceted, with the U.S. and the People's Republic of China (PRC) being neither allies nor enemies. At the same time, it is generally acknowledged that the nature of Sino-American relations will be a major factor in determining the state of the world in the 21st century.
- Since 1991 the United States has been the world's dominant military, economic, social, and political power. The United Nations was not designed for such a unipolar world with a single superpower, and conflict between an ascendant U.S. and other UN members has increased. The September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S. and subsequent military conflicts have clarified the U.S. sense of its uniqueness, as well as the desire of other countries to use the UN as a vehicle to rein in what they see as American unilateralism. Is France and Germany veto to the Iraq war due to a strategic decision?
The figure for Cambodian killed as result of the U.S conducted massive bombing campaingns was not 600,000 civilians, instead there was about 50 to 60,000 civilians were killed. Still there were a lot of people killed, just for an interest of one country who wanted to stread a democracy.
I don't agree what Figaro said about "the US bombed the crap out of North Vietnam, not Cambodia". The U.S did bomb Cambodia, but not much as the U.S did to North Vietnam. The U.S destroyed many inferstractures such as roads, houses, forest, and people. Most of Cambodian people still have side affected from Orange Chemical that the U.S was used in Vietnam war. Furthermore, there are a lot of live bombs and unexplosive materials lay on the ground.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home